Forest scientist views of regulatory obstacles to research and development of transgenic forest biotechnology

Journal of Forestry

Volumn 107, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 350-357

  Strauss, Steve H ^a   Schmitt, Mikaela ^b   Sedjo, Roger ^c  

^a OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE   (United States)

Author keywords

Genetic engineering; Genetic modification; Genomics; Survey; Tree biotechnology

Indexed keywords

ABIOTIC STRESS; COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; CONTAINMENT METHODS; FIELD EVALUATION; FIELD STUDIES; FIELD TRIAL; FOREST BIOTECHNOLOGY; FRUIT TREES; GENETIC MODIFICATION; GENOMICS; PRIVATE SECTORS; REGULATORY REFORM; REGULATORY REGIME; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; RESPONSE RATE; TERM FIELD; TIERED SYSTEM; TRANSGENICS; TREE BIOTECHNOLOGY;

GENETIC ENGINEERING; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; ORCHARDS; SURVEYS;

RESEARCH;

BIOTECHNOLOGY; GENETIC ENGINEERING; GENOMICS; REGULATORY APPROACH; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT;

NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES;

CARICA PAPAYA;

EID: 70350349084     PISSN: 00221201     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. BRADFORD, K.J., A. VAN DEYNZE, N. GUTTER-SON, W. PARROT, AND S.H. STRAUSS. 2005. Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: Lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology, and genomics. Nat. Biotechnol. 23:439-444.
2. CHORNESKY, E.A., A.M. BARTUSKA, G.H. APLET, K.O. BRITTON, J. CUMMINGS-CARLSON, F.W. DAVIS, J. ESCOW, D.R. GORDON, K.W. GOTTSCHALK, R.A. HAACK, A.J. HANSEN, R.N. MACK, F.J. RAHEL, M.A. SHANNON, L.A. WAINGER, AND T.B. WIGLEY. 2005. Science priorities for reducing the threat of invasive species to sustainable forestry. BioScience 55: 335-348.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA). 2009. Biotechnology home page. Available online at www.epa.gov/opptsmnt/tools/biotechnology.htm; last accessed June 2009.
4. INTERNATIONAL SERVICE FOR THE ACQUISITION OF AGRI-BIOTECH APPLICATIONS (ISAAA). 2008. Global status of commercialized Biotech/GMcrops 2007. ISAAA Briefs 37-2007. Available online at www.isaaa.org/; last accessed May 12,2008.
5. IRWIN, R., AND P.B.C. JONES. 2006. Biosafety of transgenic trees in the United States. P. 245- 261 in Landscapes, genomics and transgenic conifers, Williams, C.G. (ed.). Springer Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.
6. INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY (ISB). 2008. Information systems for biotechnology, field trial database. Available online ea www.isb.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm; last accessed May 12, 2008.
7. KALAITZANDONAKES, N., J.M. ALSTON, AND K.J. BRADFORD. 2007. Compliance costs for regulatory approval of new biotech crops. Nat. Biotechnol. 25:509-511.
8. NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (NRC). 2002. Environmental effects of transgenic plants: The scope and adequacy of regulation. NRC, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 342 p.
9. RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE (RFF). 2009. On- line appendices. Available online at www.rff.org/Publications/Pages/Tree_Biotechnology_Survey.aspx; last accessed June 2009.
10. SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS (SAF). 2008. Position Statement on forest tree biotechnology, Society of American Foresters. Available online at www.safnet.org/policyandpress/psst/forest_tree_biotech.pdf; last accessed May 12, 2008.
11. SCORZA, R., J.-M. HILY, A. CALLAHAN, T. MALI- NOWSKI, M. CAMBRA, N. CAPOTE, I. ZAGRAI, V. DAMSTEEGT, P. BRIARD, AND M. RAVELO-NANDRO. 2008. Deregulation of plum pox re- sistant transgenic plum "honeysweet." In ISHS Acta Horticulturae 738: Int. Symp. on Biotechnology of temperate fruit crops and tropical species. Available online at www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr738_88; last accessed May 12, 2008.
12. SEDJO, R. 2006. GMO trees: Substantial promise but serious obstacles to commercialization. Silvae Genet. 55:241-292.
13. SENECA CREEK. 2005. Changing landscapes: Trends in (Corporate) timberland ownership. Seneca Creek Associates, LLC, Poolesville, MD. 11 p.
14. SLAVOV, G.T., S.P. DIFAZIO, AND S.H. STRAUSS. 2004. Gene flow in forest trees: gene migration patterns and landscape modeling of transgene dispersal in hybrid poplar. P. 89-106 in Introgression from genetically modified plants into wild relatives, den Nijs, H.C.M., D. Bartsch, and J. Sweet (eds.). CABI Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
15. STRAUSS, S.H., M.M CAMPBELL, S.N. PRYOR, P. COVENTRY, AND J. BURLEY. 2001. Plantation certification and genetic engineering: FSCs ban on research is counterproductive. J. For. 99(12):4-7.
16. STRAUSS, S.H. 2003. Risks of genetically engineered crops. Science 301:1846-1847.
17. US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA). 2007a. Availability of an environmental assess-ment for a controlled release of genetically engi-neered populus species and hybrids. USDA Biotechnology Regulatory Services. Available online at www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main DocketDetail&dAPHIS-2007-0018; last accessed May 12, 2008.
18. US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA). 2007b. Introduction of genetically engineered or-ganisms. USDA APHIS Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 186 p. 10 appendices. Available online at www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2007/07/content/printable/complete_eis.pdf; last accessed June 2009.
19. VICTOR, D.G., AND J.H. AUSBEL. 2000. Restor ing the forests. Foreign Affairs 79(6):127-144.
20. WEBSTER, C.R., M.A. JENKINS, AND S. JOSE. 2006. Woody invaders and the challenges they pose to forestry ecosystems in the eastern United States. J. For. 104(7):366-374.